tv Campaign 2016 Republican Debate CBS February 13, 2016 9:00pm-11:01pm EST
we don't make good deals anymore. >> my philosophy on radical islamic terrorism is very simple-- we win, they lose. >> the world is a better place, it's a safer place when we are the strongest military in the world. >> i believe we have an obliexwaigz to help people who live in the shadows. >> we were fiscally responsible. we took leadership positions. we're innovative. >> we must restore our place as the leader and indispensable power of the free world. >> we are going to make america great again. >> tonight, live from the peace center in greenville, south carolina, cbs news brings you the republican presidential
( applause ) >> moderator: good evening, i'm john dickerson. this holiday weekend as america honors our first president, we're about to hear from six men who hope to be the 45th. the candidates for the republican nomination are here in south carolina for their ninth debate, one week before this state holds the first-in-the south primary. george washington wrote that the truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. we hope to shed some polite lite on the candidates' positions tonight to help voters make up their minds. so, gentlemen, please join us on stage. ( applause )
>> moderator: with us tonight, with us tonight are retired neurosurgeon, ben carson, of florida. senator marco rubio of florida. ( applause ) businessman, donald trump of new york. ( applause ) senator ted cruz of texas. ( applause ) former governor jeb bush of florida. ( applause ) and governor john kasich of ohio. ( applause ) now as most of you have heard by now, supreme court justice antonin scalia died today at the age of 79. he was the longest serving member of the court, appointed by president reagan in 1986. justice scalia was the court's leading conservativ conservative, and even those who disagreed with his opinions rde
brilliant legal scholar. please join us and the candidates on our stage in a moment of silence for justice antonin scalia. thank you. we will talk to the candidates about justice scalia and the road ahead when the debate begins in a moment. my constipation and belly pain have my stomach feeling all knotted up.
. but my symptoms keep returning. my constipation feels like a pile of bricks... that keeps coming back. linzess can help. once-daily linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. linzess is thought to help calm pain-sensing nerves and accelerate bowel movements. linzess helps you proactively manage your symptoms. do not give linzess to children under 6 and it should not be given to children 6 to 17. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include, gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. bottom line, ask your doctor about linzess today.
>> moderator: before we get started, candidates, here are the rules. when we ask you a question, you will have one minute to answer. and 30 seconds more if we ask a follow-up. if you're attacked by another candidate, you get 30 seconds to respond. and here's how we keep time. after we ask a question, you'll get a green light. the yellow light means you have 30 seconds left to finish your answer. and when time sup, the light turns red. that means please stop talking. if you keep talking, you will hear this. ( bell ) you don't want to hear that. joining me in the questioning tonight my cbs news colleague chief white house correspondent major garrett. and kimberly strassel, who is on the editorial board of the "wall street journal." and you can participate in the debate, too, through our partnership with twitter. tweet us your questions and comments usi
#gopdebate. let's begin. first, the death of justice scalia and the vacancy that leaves on the supreme court, mr. trump, i want to start with you. you've said that the president shouldn't nominate anyone in the rest of his term to replace justice scalia. if you were president and had a chance with 11 months left to go in your term, wouldn't it be an abdication to conservatives in particular not to name a conservative justice for the rest of your term? >> well, i can say this-- if the president-- and if i were president now-- i would certainly want to try and nominate a justice. and i'm sure that, frankly, i'm absolutely sure that president obama will try and do it. i hope that our senate is going to be able-- mitch and the entire group-- is going to be able to do something about it in times of delay. we could have a diane sykes or a bill pryor. we have some fantastic people bup but this is a from blow to conservatism.
this. the country is so divided right now, and now we're going to see another partisan fight taking place. i really wish the president would think about not nominating somebody. if he were to nominate somebody, let's have him pick somebody hois going to have unanimous approval and such widespread approval across the country that this could happen without a lot of recrimination. i don't think that's going to happen. and i would like the president to just for once here put the country first. we're going to have an election for president very soon and the people will understand what is at stake in that election. and so i believe the president should not move forward, and i think that we ought to let the next president of the united states decide who is going to run that supreme court with a vote by the people of the united states of america. ( bell ) ( applause ). >> moderator: dr. carson, you, like others, put out a statement after the death was announced and you said the president should delay. you've written a book on the constitution
say about whose duty it is here to act in this kind of a situation? >> well, the constitution actually doesn't address that particular situation. but the fact of the matter is, the supreme court, obviously, is a very important part of our governmental system, and when our constitution was put in place, the average age of death was under 50. and, therefore, the whole concept of lifetime appointments for supreme court judges and federal judges was not considered to be a big deal. obviously, that has changed. and it's something that probably needs to be looked at pretty carefully at some point. but we need to start thinking about the divisiveness that is going on in our country. i looked at some of the remarks that people made after finding out that justice scalia had died, and they were truly nasty remarks. and w
get to that position in our country is truly a shame. and we should be thinking about how can we create some healing in this land. but right now, we're not going to get healing with president obama. that's very clear. so i ( bell ) fully agree that we should not allow a judge to be appointed during his time. >> moderator: senator rubio-- ( applause ) senator rubio, you're a lawyer. quickly, can you address the issue of whether the constitution tells us who has the power to appoint supreme court justices? and then, also, the senate republicans last year floated an idea of removing the filibuster for senate-- excuse me, for supreme court nominations. you seemed open to that. what's your feeling on that now? >> let me first talk about justice scalia. the loss is is tremendous and obviously our exphaerts prayers go out to his family. he will go down as one of the great justices in the history of this republic. you talkou
defended the original meaning of the constitution, who understood that the constitution was not there to be interpreted based on the fadz of the moment, but it was there to be interpreted according to its original meaning. justice scalia understood that better than anyone in the history of this republic. his dissent on the independent counsel case is a brilliant piece of jurist work and his dissent on oberrer felled. i do not believe the president should appoint someone. it's been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appoint a supreme court justice. and it remind of us this-- how important this election is. someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the supreme court, and it will begin by filling this vacancy that's there now, and we need to put people on the bench that understand the constitution is not a living and breathing document. it is to be interpreted as originally meant. >> moderator: quickly, though on the question-- ( applause ) very quickly, senator, on this specific question, though. you were once in
dropping the threshold-- >> that's not accurate. >> moderator: you were never in favor of that. >> for example, today, according to the changes harry reid made, appellate judges can now be appointed by simple majority, but not supreme court justices and today i think you see the wisdom of why we don't that want to change. because if that were the case and we were not in charge of the senate harry expreed barack obama would ram down our throat a liberal justice, like the ones barack obama has imposed on us already. >> moderator: senator bush, i want to ask you, creativities for a long time have felt their republican presidents have picked justices who didn't turn out to be conservative. bernie sanders said he would have a litmus test. would you have a litmus test for a nominee, and what would it be? >> not on specific issues, not at all. i think the next president-- if i'm president i will appoint people-- nominate people that have a proven record in the judiciary. the problem in the past has been we have appointed people thinking you can
because they didn't have a record. and the problem is that sometimes we're surprised. the simple fact is the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record, similar to justice scalia, that is a lover of liberty, that believes in limited government, that consistently applied that kind of philosophy, that didn't try to legislator from the bench, that was respectful of the constitution. and then fight and fight, and fight for that nomination to make sure that that nomination passes. of course, the president, by the way, has every right to nominate supreme court justices. i'm an article 2 guy in the constitution. we're running for the president of the united states. we want a strong executive for sure. but in return for that, there should be a consensus orientation on that nomination, and there's no doubt in my mind that barack obama will not have a consensus pick when he submits that person to the senate. >> moderator: right, so, senator cruz, the constitution-- ( applause ) so senator cruz, the constitution says the president shall appoint with advice and concept from the
senate, just to clear that up. so he has the constitutional power. but you don't think he should. where do you set that date if you're president? does does it begin in election year, in december, november, september? and once you set the date, when you're president, will you abide by that date? >> well, we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming supreme court justices in an election year. and let me say-- >> moderator: i'm sorry to interrupt, were any appointed in the election year or-- >> 80 years of not confirming. for example, l.b.j., nominated abe fordyce. fordyce did not get confirmed. he was defeated. >> moderator: kennedy was confirmed in '88. >> in '87. >> moderator: that's the question, is it appointing or confirming? >> >> in this case it's both. if i could finish-- >> moderator: sorry, i want to get the facts straight for the audience. i apologize. ( booing ).
legal giant. he was somebody that i knew for 20 years. he was a brilliant man. he was faithful to the constitution. he changed the arc of american legal history. and i'll tell you, his passing tonight, our prayers are with his family, with his wife, maureen, who he adored, his nine children, his 36 grand kids. but it underscores the stakes of this election. we are one justice away from a supreme court that will strike down every restriction on abortion adopted by the states. we are one justice away from a supreme court that will reverse the heller decision, one of justice scalia's seminal decisions that upheld want second amendment right to keep and bear arms. we are one justice away from a supreme court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of americans and the stakes of this election, for this year, for the senate, the senate needs to stand strong and say we're not gonna give up theu.s. supreme court for a generation by allowing barack obama to make one moreli
and then for the state of south carolina, one of the most important judgments for the men and women of south carolina to make, is who on this stage ( bell ) has the background, the principle, the character be, the judgment, and the strength of resolve to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the court? that will be what i doll if i'm elected president. ( applause )
president than any of the experts. so you've been elected president. it's your first day in the situation room. what three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? >> what we want to do, when we want to do and it. and how hard do we want to hit? because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out isis. we are also going to have to learn who our allies are. we have allies, so-called allies. we're spending billions and billions of dollars supporting people we have no idea who they are in syria. do we want to stay that route on do we want to go and make something with russia? i hate to say iran, but with russia because we-- the iran deal is one of the worst deals i have ever seen negotiated in my entire life. it's a disgrace that this country negotiated that deal. ( applause ) but very important-- not only a disgrace. it's a disgrace and an embarrassment. but very important, who are we fighting with? who are we fighting
we have to rebuild our cray. i'm the only one on this stage that said do not go into iraq. do not attack iraq. nobody else on this stage said that. i said it loud and strong. and i was in the private sector. i wasn't a politician. fortunately. but i said it, and i said it loud and clear, you'll destabilize the middle east. that's exactly what happened. i also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago ( bell ( attack the oil. take the wealth away. attack the oil and keep the oil. they didn't listen. they just started that a few months ago. ( applause ).
and the third is rebuilding and ryan vigerating nato in the european theater, particularly in central europe and eastern europe where vladimir putin is threatening the territory of multiple countries, controls 20% of georgia and a significant percentage of ukraine. >> moderator: let me ask you a follow-up, a full, proper question. ( applause ) violent extremists are operating or active in 40 countries, some 80 countries are in different degrees of instability. so that's just the crisess overseas. barack obama walked into an economic collapse when he came into office. we face international health crises, from ebola to zika. there is a lot of opportunity for crisis, as you have talked about. what would you point to in your past to show voters that you've been in a crisis and that you've been tested when that inevitable crisis comes when you're president?
use of force in a conflict because you are now putting your name on behalf of the people of your state behind a military action, where americans in uniform could lose their life. in 2014, barack obama said he would not take military action against assad unless it was authorized by the senate beginning on the committee of foreign relations where i am one of its members. and it was hard. because you looked at the pictures. i saw the same images people saw. i'm the father of children. i saw the images of these little children gassed and poisoned by their own leaders and we were angry. something had to happen, and there was the sense we needed to secretribution. and then i looked at barack obama's plan. barack obama's plan, which john kerry later described as unbelievably small. >> and concluded that that attack would not only not help the situation. it would make it actually wowrs. it would allow assad to stand up to the united states of america, survive a strike, stay in power, and actually strengthen his dprip. so it was a difficult decision to make and one we only had a few days to look at and make a decision on and i voted
those 2:00 a.m. phone calls are concerned, judgment is what is required. and the kinds of things that you come up with some sometimes very, very difficult and very unique. one of the things that i was known for is doing things that have not been done before. so no amount of experience really prepares you to do something that has never been done before. that's where judgment comes in. and that, i think, is a situation that we're in right now. a situation that we have never been in before with the kinds of threats that pose a real danger to our nation, and it comes in very handy in those situations. >> moderator: governor kasich, russia is being credited with bombing u.s.-backed rebels on behalf of assad in alope and syria. they've also moved into the crimea, eastern ukraine. you said you want to punch them in the nose. what does that mean? >> first of all,ok
have to make it clear to russia what we expect. we don't have to declare an enemy, rattle a sword or threaten, but we need to make it clear what we expect. number one, is we will arm the folks in ukraine who are fighting for their freedom. they deserve it. there will be no ifs, ands, or buts about it. secondly, an attack on nato, truched up on any excuse of russian-speaking people, either in the nato countries, or finland or sweden is going to be an attack on us. look, i think we have an opportunity as america to put something really great together again. the egyptians, the saudis, the jordanians, the gulf states, they all know they're at risk. we need to look into europe, we look at france, we look at germany, and the migrants. we look at belgium, we look at britain. everybody is being threaten bood by radical islam. we have the opportunity to lead. the fact of the matter is the world is desperate for our leadership. sometimes they may make a remark here or there we don't like, but, frankly, the world needs us. and we have an opportunity now to
of the civilized people, those who respect civilization, the rights of women, the rights to protest, to be able to reassert our leadership all across this globe again and make sure this century is going to be the best we've ever seen. ( bell ) ( applause ). >> moderator: governor bush, you said defeating isis requires defeating assad. but wouldn't that also put us into conflict with russia, a country that supports assad? doesn't that mean effectively assad's there to stay? >> no, it doesn't, and that's the problem. the lack of leadership in this country by barack obama, john kerry, hillary clinton, thinking that this is a policy that works, this policy of containment with isis. it's a complete, unmitigated disaster. and to allow russia now to have influence in syria makes it harder but we need to destroy isis and dispose of aso-called to create a stable syria so that the four million refugees aren't a breeding ground for islamic jihadists. this is the
want to accommodate russia. russia is not taking up on the isis. they're attacking our team, the team that we have been training and the team that we've been supporting. it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest russia could be a positive partner this this. they are on the run. every time we step back, they're on the run. the question that you asked was a really good one about what you would who donetsk, what three things would do you? i would restore the military. the sequester needs to be reversed. i would have a strategy to destroy isis, and i would immediately create a policy of containment as it relates to iran's ambitions, and to make clear we are not going to allow for iran to do what it's doing, which is to move towards a nuclear weapon. those three things would be the first and foremost things we need to do in 2017. >> moderator: mr. trump you're-- ( applause ) mr. trump, you were mentioned here. you did say you could get along very well with vladimir putin. you did at one point say let russia take
>> call me a genius. i like him so far. let me just tell you this. jeb is so wrong. ( booing ) just so you understand, you know what that is? that's jeb's special interests and lobbyists talking. look, let me just tell you something-- ( booing ) jeb is so wrong. you've got to fight isis first. you fight isis first. right now, you have russia. you have iran. you have them with assad and you have them with syria. you have to knock out isis. they're chopping off heads. these are animals. you have to knock them out. you have to knock them off strong. you decide what to do after. you can't fight two wars at one time. you listen to him and listen to some of the folks that i've been listening to-- that's why we've been in the middle east for 15 years and we haven't won anything. we've spent $5 trillion in the middle east because of thinking like that. we've spent ( bell ) lindy graham, who had zero in his polls. let me tell you
we've spent-- ( booing ) we've spent-- i only tell the truth, lobbyists. we've spent $5 trillion all over the-- we have to rebuild our country. we have to rebuild our infrastructure. you listen to that, you're going to be there for another 15-- >> moderator: all right, governor bush, please respond. >> the very basic fact is vladimir putin is not going to be an apply of the united states. the whole world knows this. it's a simple basic fact. they're not taking out-- they're not even attempting to take out isis. they're attacking the troops that we're supporting. we need to create a coalition, sunni-led coalition on the ground with our special operators to destroy isis and bring about stability. and you can't do that with assad in power. >> we're supporting troops that we don't even know who they are. >> let me finish. this is ridiculous. >> we're supporting troops who we don't even know who they are. we have no idea who they are. >> moderator: gentlemen, i think i'm going to leave that there-- >> this comes from a guy who gets his foreign policies from the show. its
hillary clinton was a great negotiator in iran. we're link in dangerous times. this is a man who insults his way to the nomination. >> 44 million in new hampshire. give me a break. >> moderator: gentlemen, gentlemen, let leave it there so i can ask a question of senator cruz, who is also running for president. senator cruz, you talked about the first gulf war as being a kind of model for your focused and determined effort to go after isis. but there were 700,000 ground troops as a part of that. and you don't have a ground comtonight your plan. why? >> well, we need to focus on what the objective is. you know, your question about the first three questions you would ask in the situation room. i think it is a problem if the president, commander in chief we've elected does not have the experience and background to understand the threats facing this country coming in on day one. if you look at the threats facing this country, the single gravest threat, national security threat, is the threat of a nuclear iran. that's why i pledged on day one to
iranian nuclear deal, and anyone that thinks you can negotiate with calm me, does not understand his nature. when it doms isis, we've got to have a focused objective. one of the problems of barack obama and hillary clinton's foreign policy and, sadly, too many establishment republicans in washington, is they focus on issues unrelated to protecting this country. they focus on nation building. they focus on toppling governments to promote democracy and it ends up undermining our national security. now, with regard to isis, we need a commander in chief that sets the objective. we will utterly defeat them because they have declared war. they have declared jihad on us. what do we need to carry that out? overwhelming air power. we need to armt kurds who can be our boots on the ground. and if ground troops are necessary we should employ them but it shouldn't be politicians demonstrating political toughness. it should be military expert judgment carrying out the objectives set out by the
( applause ) so let me just tell you, i get along with everybody, which is my obligation to my company, myself, et cetera. obviously, the war in iraq was a big, fat mistake. all right. now, you can take it any way you want, and it took-- it took jeb bush-- if you remember at the beginning of his announcement, when he announced for president, it took him five days. he went back, it was a mistake, it wasn't a mistake. it took him five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said, "it was a mistake." the war in iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. iran has taken over iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the world. obviously, it was a mistake. >> moderator: so-- >> george bush made a mistake. we can make mistakes. but that one was a beauty. we should have never been in iraq. we have destabilized the middle east. >> moderator: so i'm going to-- so you still think he should be impeac
you call it whatever you want. i will tell you. they lied. athey said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. and they knew there were none. there were no weapons of mass destruction ( booing (. >> moderator: when a member on the stage brother's gets attacked you get to subpoenas. >> i get to do it five or six times or once. i'm sick ask tired of barack obama blaming my brother for all of the problems that he's had. ( applause ) and, frankly, i could care less about the insults that donald trump gives to me. it's blood sport for him. he enjoys it. and i'm glad he's happy did bit.
and he's had the gall to go after-- >> the world trade center came down during your brother's reign. remember that ( booing ) >> he's had the gall to go after my mother. >> that's not keeping us safe. >> won the latry 63 years ago when i looked up and saw my mom. my mom is the strongest woman i know. this is not about my family or his family. this is about the south carolina families that need someone to be the commander in chief that can lead. i'm that person. >> moderator: governor kasich, would you weigh in-- ( applause ) governor kasich, please weigh in. >> i gotta tell you. this is just crazy, huh? this is just nuts. okay. oh, man. i'm sorry, john. >> moderator: why is it nuts? talk about it. give us your sense of-- >> oh, listen, i think being in iraq, look, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. colin powell who is one of the most distinguished generals in modern time said there were weapons there. but, but, theac
ourselves in the middle of a civil war. the sunni, the shi'a, and the kurds never gotten along. in fact, that country was drawn, the borders of that country were drawn after world war i by westerners that didn't understand what was happening there. the tragedy of it is that we're still embroiled. and, frankly, if there weren't weapons of mass destruction we should never have gone. i don't believe the united states should involve itself in civil wars. civil wars are not in our direct are interest. look i served on a defense committee for 18 years and called bot pentagon after 9/11 by secretary rumsfeld to deal with some of the most serious problems we faced ( bell ) the fact is we should go to war when it is our direct interest. we should not be the policemen of the world, but when we go, we mean business. we'll do our job. we'll tell our soldiers, our people in the service, take care of your job and come home once we've accomplished our goals. that's what we need to do. >> moderator: 30 seconds. >> i just want to
least on behalf of me and my family, i thank god all the time it was george w. bush in the white house on 9/11, and not al gore. ( applause ) i think you can look back in in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe. and not only did he keep us safe, but no matter what you want to say about weapons of mass destruction, saddam hussein was in open violations, and the world wouldn't do anything about it, and george w. bush enforced what the international community refused to do. again, he kept us safe, and i am forever grateful for what he did.
osama bin laden when he had the chance to kill him ( applause ). >> and george bush-- by the way, george bush had the chance, also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his c.i.a. >> moderator: all right, dr. carson, we have a cleansing-- >> i'm not going to invite donald trump to the rally in charleston on monday afternoon when he brother is coming to speak. >> i don't want to go. >> i'm rescinding the invitation. i thought you you might want to come but i guess not. >> moderator: dr. carson, i have a question for you. a moment of pause here. you said, dr. carson, referring to yourself that people bought into the idea that "a nice person cant be tough on terrorist." you have called for loosening the rules of engagement for want military which could lead to more civilian casualties. explain why those casualties would be acceptable in the fight against isis? >> first of all, let me just address the iraq question. you know, i was not particularly in favor of us going to war
primarily because i have studied, you know, the middle east, recognizing that those are nations that are ruled by dictators and have been for thousands of years. and when you go in and you remove one of those dictators, unless you have an appropriate plan for replacing them, you're going to have chaos. now, fortunately, we were awbl to stabilize the situation, and it was the current administration that turned tail and ran and destabilized the situation. ( applause ) now, having said that, in terms of the rules of engagement, i was talking about, you know, obama has said, you know, we shouldn't bomb tankers coming out of refineries because there may be people in there or because the environment may be hurt. you know, that's just asinine thinking. and the fact of the matter is-- ( applause ) you know, we-- obviously, you're not going to accomplish all of your goals without some ll
damage. ( bell ) you have to be able to assess what is acceptable and what is not. >> moderator: all right, thank you, dr. carson. we're going to have to take a commercial break here. thank you to all the candidates. we'll be right back with cbs news' 2016 debate in greenville, south carolina. ( applause )
e*trade is all about seizing opportunity. and i'd like to... cut. so i'm gonna take this opportunity to direct. thank you, we'll call you. evening, film noir, smoke, atmosphere... bob... you're a young farmhand and e*trade is your cow. milk it. e*trade is all about seizing opportunity. i've been blind since birth. i go through periods where it's hard to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. learn about non-24 by calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com.
>> moderator: we're back with the republicans who would be president. the topic now is money and how the candidates would spend it. we'll turn the questioning over to kimberly strassel of the "wall street journal" and major garrett of cbs news. kim. >> moderator: mr. trump, you have made a lot of promises and you have also-- you're the only candidate who has said he would not touch entitlements. the committee for a responsible federal budget has estimated that your ideas would cost an additional $12 trillion to $15 trillion over the next 10 years and that we would have to have annual economic growth of anywhere from
to 9% annually to pay for them. are you proposing more than you can actually deliver, at least not without big deficits? >> first of all, the-- when you say i'm the only candidate, if you listen to the democrats, they want to do many things to social security. and i want to do them on its own merit. you listen to them, what they want to do to social security, none of these folks are getting elected, whether they can do it or not. i'm going to save social security. i'm going to bring jobs back from china. i'm going to bring jobs back from mexico and japan, where every country throughout the world-- now vietnam, that's the new one-- they are taking our jobs. they're taking our wealth. they are taking our base. and you and i have had this discussion. we're going to make our economy strong again. i'm lowering taxes. we have $2.5 trillion offshore that i think is 5 trillion because the government has no idea what they say 2.5, they have no idea what they're doing or
money back. you take a look at what happened just this week, china bought the chicago stock exchange, china, a chinese company. a carrier is moving to mexico, an air conditioning company. nabisco and ford-- they're all moving out. we have an economy that last quarter g.d.p., didn't grow. it was flat. ( bell ) we have to make our economy grow again. we're dying. this country is dying. and our workers are losing their jobs, and you're going-- i'm the only one who is going to save social security, believe me. >> moderator: another but how would you actually do that? i can ask you? because right now social security and medicare take up two-thirds of the budget. >> you have tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse. that we're taking care of. that we're taking care of. it's tremendous. we have in social security right now thousand and thousands of people that are over 106 years old. now, you know they don't exist. they don't exist. there's tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse, and
going to get it. but we're not going to hurt the people who have been paying into social security their whole life and then all of a sudden they're supposed to get less. we're bringing our jobs back. we're going to make our economy great again. >> moderator: senator cruz-- ( applause ) john mentioned this is about dollars and cents. we also want to talk about economic growth and wage growth. you have proposed a consumption tax. you call it a flat tax. some analysts compare it to a value added tax. how would that work and how would you address the long-standing conservative concern that something approaching a value added tax will be used to constantly increase those rates to pay for future government spending and become an escalator of taxation, not of growth? >> well, let me say at the outset that everyone here understands, everyone understands at home that the middle class has been left behind in the last seven years of the obama economy. and we've got to bring jobs back. we've got to get people back to work. we've got to get wages going up again. we've got to get p
moving from part-time work to full-time work. we all agree on that. but it's not going to be solved with magic pixie dust. it's not going to be solved by declaring into the air, "let there be jobs." we actually have to understand the principles that made america great in the first place. now, where do you get economic growth? if you look at cause and effect over our nation's history, every time we lessen the burden of washington on small business owners, on job creators worky see incredible economic growth. you do that through tax reform and regulatory reform. my tax plan, typical family of four, first $36,000, you earn, you pay nothing in taxes, no income taxes, no payroll taxes no, nothing. above 10%, everyone pays the same simple flat 10% income rate. it's flat and fair. you can fill out your taxes on a postcard ( bell ) and we abolish the i.r.s. and if you want to see the postcard, i've got it on my web site. >> moderator: right, but to the question-- because conservatives have flirted with this idea
but especially on this consumption value added tax system, in europe, where it exists, it has become an escalator of taxation to feed government spending. and that's why conservatives have long resisted it. why? and what would do you as president to make sure that doesn't happen? >> so, major, the business flat tax that is in my tax plan is not a v.a.t. a v.a.t. in europe is a sales tax. the business flat tax is not a sales tax. it is a tax of 16% imposed fairly and evenly across the board on all businesses. and one of the things that's critical is we're doing that in conjunction with abolishing the corporate income tax wabolishing the obamad care taxes, with abolishing the payroll taxes, the biggest taxes paid by most working americans, and with abolishing the death tax which is cruel and unfair. you asked about economic growth. the non-partisan tax foundation estimated that the cruz simple flat tax would produce 4.9 million new jobs,
capital investment by 44% and lift everyone's incomes by double digits. ( bell ) that's how you turn the country around, not just hoping and praying for it, but implementing policies that work. >> moderator: okay, i have a question, a related tax question. ( applause ) for senator rubio. senator rubio, you have the highest tax rate of anyone up on the stage in terms of the top tax rate, 35%, which some economists say would limit its potential to boost economic growth. you do that so will have more revenue to pay for a trip ling of the child tax credit. normally, it's liberals who like to use the tax code to influence social policy. why should conservatives want a tax plan that adopts the other side's approach?
they earned through work and invests it in their children they want don't. that makes no sense. parenting is the most important job any of us will ever have. family formation is the most important institution in society. ( applause ) so my tax plan creates, especially for work families, an additional child tax credit so that parents who are working get to keep more of their own money, not the government's money, to invest in their children to go to school to go to a private school, to buy a new backpack. let me tell you, if you're a parent struggling you know $50 a month is the difference between a new pair of shoes this month or not getting a new pair of shoes for your kids. i'm going to have a tax plan that is pro family because the family is the most important institution in society. you cannot have a strong country without a strong family. ( applause )
your state. total enrollment and overall costs of that program have gone well beyond what anyone had expected, including yourself. how can you argue that this overall growth fits in with conservative ambush administrations to significantly cut back on the size of federal welfare programs? >> well, first of all, those numbers incorrect. we are-- our medicaid programs are coming in below cost estimates, and our medicaid program in the second year grew at 2. the 5%. kimberly, let me tell you, when we expand medicaid and treat the mentally ill, then they don't live under a bridge or live in a prison where they cost $22,500 a year. when they take the drug addict asked treat them in the prisons we stop the revolving door of people in and out of prisons and save $22,500 a year. guess what else? they get their lives back. and the working poork they're now getting health care. do you know about a third of the people who are now getting that health care are people who are suffering
very serious illnesses, particularly cancer. so what i would tell you is we've gone from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. we've cut taxes by more than any governor in america, by $5 billion. we have grown the number of jobs by 400,000 private sector jobs since i've been governor. our credit is strong. our pensions are strong. and, frankly, we leave no one behind. economic growth is not an end unto itself. we want everyone to rise, and we will make them personally responsible for the help that they get ( bell ) and that is exactly the program we're driving in ohio. and, boy, people ought to look at ohio, because we've got a good formula. >> moderator: governor bush of course jump in. >> i admire the fact that governor kasich is supporting spending more money on drug treatment and mental health. i think that's a high priority across this country but expanding obamad care is what we're talking about, and obamad care's expansion, even though the federal government is paying for the great majo
creating further debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. we should be fighting obamad care, repealing obamad care, replacing it with something totally different. when i was as a private citizen, florida was confronted with the choice. the governor was supportive of the doing what john did. so was the florida senate. a committed speaker of the house asked me to go as a private citizen to make the case against the expansion. ( bell ) i did, and it wasn't expanded there, just as it wasn't expanded in south carolina under governor haley. >> moderator: we'll quickly, jump in. i have a question for governor bush. >> first of all, when jeb was governor, his first four years as governor, he-- his medicaid program grew twice as fast as mine. okay. it's just a fact. now, with obamad care, i'm not only sued the administration. i did not set up an exchange. and he knows that i'm not for obamacare, never have been. but here's what's interesting about medicaid. you know who expanded medicaid five times to try to help the folks and give them opportunity so that you could rise and get
president ronald reagan. the fact of the matter is we expanded to get people on their feet, and once they're on their feet, we are giving them the training and the efforts that they need to be able to get work and pull out of that situation. that's what we're doing in our state. >> south koreans need to know this. the cato news ?oout, which exwraidz governors based on their spending, ranks him right at the bottom. and governor haley is ranked at the top. >> moderator: let me get in a question-- >> he mentioned my name. >> moderator: i understand. >> hold omajor, hold omajor. >> south koreans want to make sure they elect the most conservative governor or candidate that can win. >> let me tell you-- >> moderator: i have a question on-- >> major, look i have to correct the record. and the fact of the matter is, we went from an $8 billion thoal a $2 billion surplus. we're up 400,000 jobs. our credit is rock solid. and i don't know-- look, the bottom line is the people of this-- of this country, and this state want to see everybody rise, and they want to see unity, and i
this fighting tonight because people are frankly sick of the negative campaigning. and i'm going to stay positive about what i want to do-- >> moderator: from the perspective economic growth, viewed from the perspective of economic growth, you have proposed a tax on hedge fund managers. the americans for tax reform, a conservative tax group you're probably aware of, has said no republican should be for higher taxes on capital gonzales. and many conservatives wonder if this proposal of yours would undermine not only that philosophy but undercut your projections of 4% economic growth annually under your presidency. >> of course, not. it won't have an impact-- hedge funds managers paying ordinary income? in fact it's not just hedge fund people, but people in the business of investing other people's money, getting capital gains treatment is not appropriate. they should be paying ordinary income. that's their business. they're grateful to be awbl to make a lot of money. i'm sure. and what we do is lower the rate. it's not the end of the world that private equity
that are right now getting capital gains treatment for the income they earn pay ordinary tbk intk, luke everybody else in this room. that's not a problem at all. what we need to do is reformat tax code to simplify the rates to shift power away from washington, d.c. that's what i did as governor of the state of florida. $19 billion of tax cuts and it stimulated seven out of the eight years, florida led the nation in job growth. >> moderator: consider carson, before we go to break, could you give us your sense of this conversation about either medicaid or economic growth through taxation? >> first of all, let me just mention on the tax issue, ben carson.com, go read about it. because my tax plan has been praised by cato, by "wall street journal," "forbes"said it is the best, most progrowth, and it is based on real fairness for everybody. it starts at the 150% poverty level. but even the people below that have to
because everybody has to have skin in the game. millions of people can't, you know, talk about what other people have to pay and have no skin in the game. and it deals with corporate tax rate. makes it the same as everybody else. ( bell ) everybody plays exactly the same. >> moderator: doctor-- >> as far as medicare and medicaid, my main goal is to get rid of obamacare and put the care back in the hand of patients. >> moderator: dr. carson, i'm sorry. we have to go to commercial. the free market wants what it wants. back soon to the republican debate in greenville, south carolina.
my fellow americans... they say we're a nation divided. that's not true. we agree on a lot. like paul rudd. everybody loves paul rudd. i didn't know this was going to happen! you know what else everyone loves? emojis. no. beer! that's why we're forming the bud light party. just wait till you see our caucus. we've got the biggest caucus in the country! ooooeeeyyyyy! i'm really inspired right now. america has seen the light... and there's a bud in front of it! sfx: crowd cheers, fireworks ♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪ ♪jake reese, "day to feel alive"♪
choose, choose, choose. but at bedtime... ...why settle for this? enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store, right now save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed, plus 24-month financing.
know better sleep with sleep number. (elephant sound) there's a big difference between making noise, (tapping sound) and making sense. (elephant sound) (donkey sound) when it comes to social security, we need more than lip service. our next president needs a real plan to keep social security strong. (elephant noise) hey candidates. enough talk. give us a plan.
>> we're supporting troops that we don't even know who they are. >> this is a man who insults his way to the nomination. >> i thank god all the time that it was george w. bushed in the white house on 9/11 and not al gore. >> the world trceade nter came down during the reign of george w. bush. >> moderator: you still think he should be impeached. >> i think it's my turn. >> they lied. they said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none and they knew there were none. >> i am sick and tired of him going after my family.
>> live from the peace center in greenville, south carolina, cbs news brings you the republican presidential debate. here again, john dickerson. >> moderator: welcome back. we'll begin the second half the debate with one of the hottest issues in the republican campaign-- immigration. but before i turn it back to major garrett and kimberly strassel, i have one question for mr. trump. mr. trump, in the republican national committee's spanish language response to the state of the union, congressman diaz bell artsaid, "it's essential that we find a legislative solution--" talking about immigration-- "to offer a permanent and humane solution to those who live in the shadows." what does that mean to you "a humane solution to those who live in the shadows?" >> i want everybody taken care of, but we have to take care of our people in this country. we're not taking care of our people. we have no border. we have no control. people are flooding across. we can't have it. we either have a border-- and i'm very
not proposing-- i will build a wall. i will build a wall. remember this, the wall will be paid for by mexico. we are not being treated right, we are not being treated properly. if we don't have borders, if we don't have strength, we don't have a country. people are flowing across. we have to take care of our people. believe me. ( applause ). >> moderator: senator rubio, for the purposes of the lines you would craw legislatively as a president on immigration reform, define amnesty. >> well, first of all, i think amnesty is the forgiveness of a wrongdoing without consequence. and i've never supported that. i do not support that. i think there has to be consequences for violating our immigration laws. what i think is clear about this issue to begin with is we're not going to be awbl to make progress on illegal immigration until first illegal immigration is brought under control. you go back to 1986 when they legalized three million people and promised to secure the border. an didn't happen.
lost trust in the federal government. it is clear the only way to make progress on immigration is not just to pass a law that enforces the law but actually prove to people it's working. they want to see the wall built. they want to see e-verify. they want to see an entry-exit tracking system. only after all of that is in place, then we'll see what the american people are willing to support on this issue. i think the american people will be very reasonable, but responsible, about how you handle someone who has been here a long time, who can pass a background check, who pays a fine and starts paying taxes and all they want is a work permit. but i can't coany of that until you prove to people that illegal immigration is under control once and for all ( bell ). ( applause )
their parent as children. as president, you would have the names and addresses of some 800,000 of those that have registered under that action. now, you have said in this country we shouldn't go door to door look for illegals, but in this case you would have a list. would you use it? >> well, you know, your question highlights a sharp difference on immigration on this stage. you know, in a republican primary, everyone talks tough on immigration. everyone is against illegal immigration in a republican primary. but as voters, we've been burned over and over again by people that give us a great campaign speech and they don't walk the walk. there are sharp differences on amnesty. if you look at the folks on this stage, when harry reid and chuck schumer and establishment republicans were leading the fight topaz a massive amnesty plan, i stood with jeff session sessiond steve king and the american people and led the fight to
immigration reform to pass. i want people to come out of the shadows" and he proposed an amendment that would legalize people and proposed doubling the number of green cards and a 500% increase on guest workers. now his position is different. now he is a passionate opponent of all those things so he either wasn't telling the truth then or he isn't telling the truth now but to argue he is a pure oyst immigration is just not true. >> major, i get a response to that. >> moderator: very quickly. >> you know, the lines are very, very clear. marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. i oppose citizenship. marco stood on the debate stage and assailant sade that. i would note not only that, marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. as speaker in the state of the house he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. in addition, he went on univision in spanish and sailed he would not rescind president obama's
exclusive amnesty on his first day in office. i have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one. and on the question-- >> very quickly. >> first of all, i don't know how he knows what i said on univision because he doesn't speak spanish. and second of all, the other point i would make-- ( speaking spanish ) in spanish. >> look, this is a disturbing pattern now. for a number of weeks ted cruz has just been telling lies. he lied about ben carson in iowa. he lies about planned parenthood and marriage. and he makes things up. the bottom line is this is a campaign and people are watching. here is the truth-- ted cruz supported legalizing people in this country, and only now does he say-- >> that is absolutely false what he said is knowingly false. and i would note-- >> i'll put on on my web site marcorubio.com. >> if you want to assess who is telling the truth-- ( cheers ) y
sessions who said without ted cruz the rubio-schumer amnesty bill would have passed and ted was responsible. you should look to rush limbaugh-- >> moderator: senator cruz. governor bush. >> i'll put the video online. >> moderator: governor bush i want to bring this out to a wider philosophical aspect, if you will. >> thank you. >> moderator: you have said illegal immigrant broke the law but it's not a felony-- still quoting-- it's an act of love, an act of commitment to your family. mr. trump ayou are aware, has denounced that statement. what does that mean to you and how do you feel about immigration reform? >> great question. i feel like i have to get into my inner chris christie, and point out the reason why i should be president is listening to two senators talk about arcane amendments to bills that didn't pass. ( applause ) this is-- this is the problem. we need-- we need a leader to fix this problem. and i have a detailed plan
controlling the border, dealing with the visa over-stayers, making sure we have a path to legal status, not to citizenship, to those who come out from the shadows and pay a fine, learn glrk don't commit fines, work and pay taxes. that is the better approach. >> moderator: do you believe the rhetoric is compassion anti-to this issue? >> the great majority of people who come to this country come because they have no other choice. they want to come to provide for their families. that doesn't mean it's right. that doesn't mean it's right. we should pick who comes to our country. we should control our border. coming here legally should be a lot easier than coming illegally. the motivation, they're not all rapists, as you know who said. they're not that. these are people coming to provide for their families and we should show a little more respect for the fact that they're struggling. it doesn't mean we shouldn't be controlling the border. that's exactly what we should be doing. >> moderator: mr. trump-- ( applause ) >> when i announced that i was running for president on june
wasn't even a subject. if i didn't bring it up, we wouldn't even be talking. now-- ( booing) i don't often agree with marco, and i don't often agree with ted, but i can in this case. the weakest person on this stage by far on illegal immigration is jeb bush. they come out of an act of love. well weather you like it or not, he is so weak on illegal immigration, it's laughable. and everybody upons it. >> so, you know, this-- ( bell ) this is the standard operating procedure to disparage me. that's fine. i don't really care. >> spend a little more money on the commercials. >> but if you want to talk about weakness, you want to talk about weakness, it's weak to dissparnlg women. it's weak to disparage hispanics. it's weak to denigrate the disabled. and it's really weak to call john mccain a loser because he was a p.o.w. >> i dent-- >> that is outrageous.
>> he also said-- excuse exoouz me. he said about language, two days ago, he said he would take his pants off and moon everybody, and that's fine. nobody reports that. he gets up and says that. and then he tells me oh, my language was a little bit rough. my language. >> moderator: governor kasich. >> give me a break. >> governor kasich, governor kasich, here in sourk earlier this week, you said the idea, the concept of deporting 11 million undocument workers here-- >> make sure my mother is listening. she's watching the debate. >> you did say it. it's been reported in 10 different newspaper. >> moderator: we will leave the moon metaphors to be adjudicated later, i assure you. governor kasich, you said earlier this week in south carolina, the concept, the idea of deporting 11 million undocument workers in this country is nuts. why is it you are so opposed to that idea? senator cruz has said it's a simple application of existing law. the application of that is not inhumane. wh is just.
this is the ninth or the tenth debate, and what i've been watching here, this back-and-forth. and these attacks, some of them are personal. i think we're fixing to lose the election to hillary clinton if we don't stop this. ( applause ) i mean, the fact is, you know what i would suggest? why don't we just take all the negative ads and all the negative comments down from television and let us just talk about what we're for and let's sell that and the republican party will be stronger as a result. now, that--
million people out of their homes. i'll tell thu-- within the first 100 days i will send a plan like this to the congress of the united states, and if i'm president i'll bet you dollars to donuts right now. that will pass. that is a reasonable proposal that the people of this country, in my judgment, will support, and so will the bulk of the congress of the united states. ( applause ) >> moderator: moving subjects, dr. carson, this week, morgan stanley agreed to pay a $3.2 billion fine to state and federal authorities for contributing to the mortgage crisis. you have a lot of democrats out saying we should be jailg more executives. so two questions. should financial executives be held legally responsible for financial crises? and do you think fines like these are an effective way to deter companies from future behavior like that? >> first of all, please go to my web site, bencarson.com, and read my immigration policy, okay, because it actually makes
sense. as far as these fines are concerned, you know, here's the big problem-- we've got all these government regulators and all they're doing is running around looking for people to fine. and we've got 645 different federal agencies and subagencies, way, way, too many, and they don't have anything else to do. i think what we really need to do is start trimming the regulatory agencies rather than going after the people who are trying to increase the viability, economic viability of our society. now, that doesn't mean that there aren't some people out there who are doing bad things. but i'm not sure that the way to solve that problem is by increasing all the regulatory burden. you know, when you consider how much regulations cost us each year, you know, $2 trillion per family, $24,000 per family. that happens to be the same level as the poverty
( bell ) you want to get rid of poverty. get rid of all the regulations. >> moderator: senator cruz, i have a question for you. speaker paul ryan has made a big commitment to trying to lift the 50 million poor out of poverty. arthur brooks, who is the president of the american enterprise institute says, ," if we are not warriors for the poor every day, free enterprise has no matter." how you have been in your campaign a warrior for the poor? >> i think it is a very important question because the people who have been hurt the most in the obama economy had been the most vulnerable. it's been young people. it's been hispanics. it's been african americans. it's been single moms. we have the lowest percentage of americans working today in any year since 1977. and the sad reality is big government, massive taxes, massive regulation, doesn't work. what we need to do instead is bring back booming economic growth. small businesses are the heart of the economy. two-thirds of all new jobs come from small bu
out of povertyue know, i think of these issues from the perspective of my dad. my dad fled cuba in 1957. he was just 18. he couldn't speak english. he had nothing. he had did 100 in his underexpwair he washed dishes making 50 cent an hour and paid his way through school. today my dad is a pastor. he travels the country preaching the gospel. now, i think about all of these issues. how would it impact my dad if he was washing dishes? if we have obamad care in place the odds are very high that my dad would have been laid off because it's teenaged kids like my dad who get laid off. and if he wasn't laid off, he would have had his hours reduced. we need to lift the burden on small businesses and we need welfare reform that gets people off welfare and back to work. ( bell ). >> moderator: mr. trump, mr. trump, i was with you in pendleton, south carolina, earlier this week at the rodeo arena. it was a bit chilly
you promised the crowd and they rose to their feet that if ford or a company like it tried to move a company to mexico you would try to stop them or impose a 35% tariff. based on your understanding of the presidency, where would you derive that power? would you need the consent of congress to go along? and do you see the presidency as a perch from which you can cajole and/or threaten private industry to do something you think is better for the u.s. economy? >> i would build consensus with congress, and congress would agree with me. i'll give you an example. because i don't like the idea of using executive orders like our president, it is a disaster what he's doing. i would build consensus, but consensus means you have to work hard. you have to cajole. you have to get them into the oval office and get them all together, and you have to make deals. let me just tell you, i mentioned before, china, big chinese company, bought the chicago exchange. kerry is moving-- and if you saw the people-- because they have a video of the
moving to mexico, okay. i'll tell you what, i would go right now to carrier and i would say, "i am going to work awfully hard. you're going to make air conditioners now in mexico. you're going to get all of these 1400 people that are being laid off-- they're laid off. they were crying. it was a very sad situation. you're going to go to mexico. you're going to make air conditioners in mexico, you're going to put them across our border with no tax. i'm going to tell them right now, i am going to get consensus from congress, and we're going to tax you when the air conditioners come. stay where you are or build in the united states because we are killing ourselveses with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers. ( bell ) >> moderator: all right, mr. trump, thank you so much. we're going to take a break for a moment. we'll be back in a moment with the cbs news republican debate. >> we're not taking care of our people. we have no border. we have no control. people are flooding across. we can't have it. >> ted cruz has just been telling lies. he lied abouen
iowa. he lies. planned parenthood, he lies about marriage. now he makes things up. >> we should be fighting obamacare, repealing obamacare, replacing it with something totally different. i am her best friend. i am her ally. so i asked about adding once-daily namenda xr to her current treatment for moderate to severe alzheimer's. it works differently. when added to another alzheimer's treatment, it may improve overall function and cognition. and may slow the worsening of symptoms for a while. vo: namenda xr doesn't change how the disease progresses. it shouldn't be taken by anyone allergic to memantine, or who's had a bad reaction to namenda xr or its ingredients. before starting treatment, tell their doctor if they have, or ever had, a seizure disorder, difficulty passing urine, liver, kidney or bladder problems, and about medications they're taking. certain medications, changes in diet, or medical conditions
and may increase side effects. the most common side effects are headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. all my life, she's been there for me. now i am giving back. ask their doctor about once-daily namenda xr and learn about a free trial offer at namendaxr.com. went to ancestry, i put in the names of my grandparents first. i got a leaf right away. a leaf is a hint that is connected to each person in your family tree. i learned that my ten times great grandmother is george washington's aunt.
dwral nomination. mr. trump, i have a question for you. presidents have to on the one hand be firm but also be flexible. you have been flexible and changed your opinion on a number of things from abortion to hillary clinton. but you said rightly it's just like ronald reagan who changed his mind on things. but at the same time, you're criticizing senator cruz for what you say is a checkon imgration. he disputes that, of course. so why is your change of opinion make you like reagan and when he changes his opinion it's a huge character flaw? >> john, in life you have flexibility. you do have flexibility. when you're fighting wars you're going one way, you have a plan. it's a beautiful plan. it can't lose. the enemy makes a change, and all of a sudden you have to change. you have to have flexibility. ronald reagan, in terms of what we're talking about, was the great example. he was a somewhat liberal democrat who became a somewhat pretty strong conservative. he became-- most importantly he became a great president. he made many of the changes that i've
a grew up and as i get older and wiser and i feel that i am a conservative. now i also feel i'm a commonsense conservative because some of the views i don't agree with. and i think a lot of people agree with me, obviously, based on what's happening. >> moderator: which conservative idea don't you agree with? >> well, i think these people always hit me with eminent domain, and, frankly, i'm not in love with eminent domain. but eminent domain is something you need very strongly. when jeb said you used eminent domain privately for a parking lot. it wasn't for a parking lot, the state of new jersey-- too bad chris christie wasn't here he could tell you-- the state of new jersey was going to build a tower that was going to employ thousands of people and do a big job in terms of economic development. just so you understand, i got hit very hard. it's private, it's private, eminent domain. you understand they took over a stadium in texas and they used private eminent domain but he just found that out after he made the charge. >> moderator: governor bush, i think by "ty"
he is talking about your brother. >> well, jeb, wouldn't have known about it. >> there is all sorts of intrigue where i disagree with my brother. that would be one right there. you should not use eminent domain for private purposes,. >> you shouldn't have used it then. >> transmission lines, pipe lines, bridges, horizon, all of that is proper use of eminent domain. not to take an elderly woman's home to build a parking lot so high rollers can come to new york city to failed casinos in new york city. that is not the appropriate thing to do. >> moderator: senator cruz, you were mentioned in the mix here. your response. >> you know, flexibility is a good thing, but it shouldn't-- you shouldn't be flexible on core principles. i like donald. he is an amazing entertainer. but his policies for most of his life-- >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> for most of his life, his policies have been very, very liberal. , for most of his life he de
very prochoice, and a a supporter of partial birth abortion. right now, today, as a candidate, he supports federal taxpayer funding for planned parenthood. i disagree with him on that. that is a matter of principle-- >> are you the single biggest liar. you are probably worse than jeb bush. you are the single biggest liar. this guy lied-- let me just tell you. this guy lied about ben carson when he took votes away from ben carson in iowa. and he just continues. and today, we had robo calls saying, "donald trump is not going to run in south carolina" where i'm leading by a lot. i'm not going to run. vote for ted cruz. this is the same thing he did to ben carson. this guy will say anything. nasty guy. now i know why he doesn't have one endorsement from any of his colleagues. >> all right, john, i get to respond. >> moderator: pick from the buffet there. >> he is a nasty guy. >> i will say-- i will say it is fairly remarkable to see donald defending ben after he
pathological and compared him to a child molester, both of which were offensive and wrong. >> i just quoted his book. >> donald didn't disagree with the substance that he supports taxpayer funding for planned parenthood. and donald has this weird pattern-- when you point to his own record he screams liar, liar, liar. >> where did i support it? where did i support it. >> if you want to go and watch the video. >> hey, ted, where did i support it? don't tell me about a video. >> out of his own mouth-- you supported it when we were battling over defunding planned parenthood. >> that's a lot of nonsense. >> you said planned parenthood does wonderful things-- >> it does do wonderful things but not as it relates res to args bothers. excuse me. there are wonderful things having to do with women's health. >> you and i dils agree on that. >> not when it comes to abortion. not when it comes to abortion. that's where i draw the line. >> the reason, john, principal matters, sadly, was illustrated by the first questis
the next president is gog appoint one, two, three, four supreme court justices. if donald trump is president, he will appoint liberals. if donald trump is president-- >> excuse me, excuse me. >> your second amendment will go away. you know how i know that-- >> moderator: hold ogentlemen, i'm going to turn this car around. >> ted cruz with your brother wanted john roberts to be on the united states supreme court. they both pushed him. he twice approved obamacare. >> moderator: all right, gentlemen. >> good going, man. >> my name was mentioned twice! >> moderator: hold on, we're in danger of driving this into the dirt. >> you gave us-- >> moderator: senator rubio, you want to jump in here. >> he just called me a liar. >> moderator: you're on deck. >> he also denigrated one of my heroes, ronald reagan. ronald reagan was a liberal maybe in the 1950s. he was a conservative reform governor for eight years before he became president and no one would suggest he made an evolution for political purposes. he was a conservative. and he
people like donald trump does. he tore down the berlin wall. great guy. >> moderator: governor-- senator cruz, 30-- 30 seconds on this one. >> i did not nominate john roberts. i would not have nominated john roberts-- >> you pushed him. you pushed him-- >> donald, donald. >> why do you lie. >> donald, adults learn not to interrupt each other. >> yeah, yeah, i know, you're an adult. your an adult. >> i did not nominate him. i would have nominated my former bus mike ludic, who was justice scalia's first law clerk. and you know how i know donald's supreme court justices will be liberal because he supported liberals from jimmy carmter, hillary clinton, john kerry. in 2004 he contributed to john kerry. nobody who cares about judges would contribute to john kerry, chum schumer and harry reid. >> moderator: we're going to switch gears here. senator marco rubio, please. weigh in. >> on anyt
>> moderator: i thought you you had-- >> let me talk about poverty. >> moderator: i thought you had a point you wanted to make. >> poverty is something that is important-- >> i think that was me. >> moderator: you're on the on-deck circle, sir. >> the issue of poverty is critical. to me poverty is free enterprise not reaching people. today, we have antipoverty programs that don't cure poverty. we don't cure pompt in america. our antipoverty programs have become in some instance ways of life, a lifestyle. we do need antipoverty programs. you can't have free enterprise programs without them but not as a way of life. i have a very specific proposal and in 60 seconds i can't describe them all but it basically turns the programs over to states, allowing states to design innovative programs to cure poverty, because i think nicki haley will do a better job of curing poverty than barack obama. >> moderator: senator, going back to immigration, in your last debate you listed your series of accomplishments in the senate. one thing you left off is immigration reform. is it the case in your list of accomplishments you can't
didn't pass. we have not solved immigration in this country, it is worse today than it was three years ago which is worse than five years ago and it has to be confronted and solved. you asked a question about flexibility. let me tell you about that. one of the things you need in leadership is the ability to understand to get things done you must figure out the way to get it done. you will not pass comprehensive immigration reform. people do not trust federal government upon. they want to see the law enforced. they want to see illegal immigration come under control. they want to see that wall. they want to see e-verify. they want to see all of thyself things working and then they will have a conversation you about what do you do with people who have been here a long time that are otherwise not criminals. but they're not going to do it until you first enforce the law. ( applause )
need to scream and jump up and down like everybody else." is that really what you want? what we just saw? i don't think so. and, you know, i-- when i got into this race, i decided to look under the hood of the engine of what runs washington, d.c. and my first inclination was to run away, but i didn't do it because i'm thinking about our children and fact that we are the united states of america. and anybody up here is going to be much better than what's going to come on the other side. and what happened tonight with justice scalia tells you that we cannot afford to lose this election and we cannot be tearing each other down. ( applause ).
so in the spirit of saying something that might be politically incorrect, tell the voters something that they need to hear but that might be politically incorrect? >> well, first of all, i'm not a politician. so i'm never going to become a politician. but here's what-- here's what people need to know. people need to know that free college is not-- it's a non-starter. you you know, you have to look at our economic situation. we're on the verge of economic collapse. and, you know, we're-- it's not just the $19 trillion. but it's also the $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. what we need to think about is what does that do to the average person? when we have a debt of that nature, it causes the fed to change their policy. it causes the central bank to keep the rates low, and who does does that affect? mr. arnlg who used to go to the bank every friday and put part of his check in the bank andch
three decades and be able to retire with a nice nest egg. that's gone. that part of the american dream is gone. all of these things are disappearing. and bernie sanders and people like hillary clinton blame it on the rich. they say those evil rich people. we take their money we can solve the problems. it's not the evil rich people. it's the irresponsible evil government. ( bell ). ( applause ).
business and individuals, and you need a fiscal plan to be able to get ourselves in a situation where people can predict a little bit about the future when it comes to the fiscal issues. and when when you have that formula, combined with workforce that's trained, you can explode the economy and create many jobs. i have done it twice and i want to go back to washington and do it again. john, the thing is i think there are people now, these blue-collar democrats-- my dad was a blue-collar democrat-- the democratic party's left them. when they're arguing about being socialists, they've lost those blue-collar democrats. and you know what i think they get out of me is my sense of what they get out of me, and it's an embarrassment about campaigns. you brag about yourself. ( bell ) but i think i'm a uniter. i think people sense it. i'm a man that can give people hope and a sense that they have the opportunity rise. and i'll tell you, i love these blue-collar democrats because they're going to vote for us come next fall, promise you that. ( applause )
>> moderator: mr. trump, let me ask you a question, presidents in both parties say the one thing you need in your administration is somebody who can tell you you're wrong. you don't necessarily seem like somebody who has somebody who tells you you're wrong a lot. you can tell us of an instance when somebody said, "donald trump, you're wrong," and you listened to them. >> i would say my wife tells me i'm wrong all the time. and i listen. ( laughter ) >> moderator: about what? >> oh, let me just say-- look, i am very open-- i hired top people. i've had great success. i built a great, great company. i don't need to do this. i'm self-funding. i'm spending a lot of money. i've spent-- like in new hampshire i spent $3 million. jeb bush spent $44 million. he came in five and i came in number one. that's what the country needs, folks. i spend $3. he spends 42 of their money, of special interest money. and it's just-- this is not going to make-- excuse me. this is not going to make our country great again. this is not what we need in
we need people that know what the hell they're doing. and politicians, they're all talk. they're no action. and that's why people are supporting me. i do listen to people. i hire experts. i hire top, top people. and i do listen. and you know what? sometimes they're wrong. you have to know what to do when to do it. but sometimes they're wrong. >> moderator: something in talking to voters that they wish somebody would tell you to cut it out is the profanity. what's your reaction to that? ( applause ). >> well, i'll tell you-- over the years, i've made many speeches. people have asked me, big companies have asked me to make expeeches frenz of mine that run big companies, on success. and occasion, in order to sort of really highlight something, i'll use a profanity. one of the profanities that i got credited with using that i didn't use was a very bad word two weeks ago they never used. i said... you. and everybody said oh, he didn't say anythingwr
so everyone thinks i said-- i didn't say anything. i never said the word. it is very unfair that criticism. now, i will say this, with all of that being said, ( bell ) i have said i will not do it at all, because fisay a word that's a little bit off color, a little bit, it ends up being a headline. i will not do it again. i was a very good student at a great school not using-- by the way-- not using profanity is very easy ( bell ). >> moderator: governor bush. >> i have to respond to this. >> moderator: how about you respond and you can answer the question i'll ask. >> sounds like a good plan or you could ask me two questions so i will get two questions. >> moderator: if we adjudicate this the night will be over. in 2012 you said your father and ronald reagan would have a hard time based on their records of trying to find accommodation and finding some degree of common ground. do you still feel that way? >> i think the dysfunction in washington is really dangerous and we need a proven leader that has a record of solving problems, someone who doesn't cut a
someone who will be a commander in chief to unite our country, someone who doesn't disparage people or brags he's been bankrupt four times and it was great because he could use the legal system. >> let me respond. that's another lie. i never went bankrupt! >> that's another lie. this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. >> we need someone with a proven record to be able to forge consensus to solve problems. and right now, both republicans and democrats in washington don't get it. people are struggling. 63% of americans can't make a $500 car payment. most americans are living paycheck to paycheck. and we need someone with a proven record of growing the economy, reforming the things that are broken and i'm that person. >> moderator: mr. trump, you can respond. >> jeb goes around saying just like the biggest business leaders in this country i've used the laws of the land to chapter-- i bought a company, i threw it immediately into a chapter, i made a great deal. i uses the laws to my benefit because i run a
company. excuse me, jeb! i never went bankrupt, never. but you don't want to say that. let me just say, i've used it just like the biggest leaders in the country. let me tell you something, florida. flrkd he put so much debt on floridaue know, we keep saying he's a wonderful governor, wonderful governor-- he put so much debt on florida, and he increased spending so much that as soon as he got out of office, florida crashed. i happened to be there. it's my second home. florida crashed. he didn't coa good job as governor. >> here we go. >> excuse me, you haven't heard that. you listen to the good record in florida. you take a look at what happened as soon as that year ended he got out ( bell ) florida crashed. too much debt. he loaded it up with debt, and his spending went through the ruth. >> moderator: john, please, the bells are ringing, sir. >> this is not a good governor. >> here's the record. here's the record. we led the nation in job growth seven out of eight years. when i left there was $9 billion of reserves, 35% of general revenue. no state came close to that. >> take a look at your
states to go to a.a.a. bond rating. we didn't go bankrupt and call it success when people are laid off, when vendors don't get paid. that's not success. what we did was create an environment where people had a chance to have income. personal income during my time went up 4.4%. >> florida went down right after you went to office. >> the government group-- >> moderator: senator rubio, i want to ask you a 30-second question-- >> 30 seconds. >> moderator: i'll ask the question and you do what you want. >> i'll speak facht. >> moderator: no president can know everything, right? so a smart leader knows how to ask questions. so if you could talk to any previous president, what's the smart question you would ask about that job that you want ton? >> i think one of the presidents-- the president i grew up under was ronald reagan, and reagan hadda i vision for america's future. if you think about what ronald reagan inherited it's not unlike what the next president will inherit. this is the worst president we had for 35 years, 35
carter. i think the question is how do you ipspire the american people to believe in the future? what did it take to ensure that the american people despite all of the difficulties of the timeue look back at the time. the american military was in decline. our standing in the world was in decline. we had hostages being held in iran. our economy was in bad shape. the american people were scared about the future. they were scared about what kind of country their children were going to live in and inherit. and yet somehow ronald reagan was able to instill in our nation and our people a sense of optimism and he turned america around because of what vision and ultimately because of that leadership. i wish ronald reagan was still around. this country needs someone just like that. and if our next president is even half the president ronald reagan was, america is going to be greater than it's ever been. >> moderator: that's going to have to be it there, senator rubio. we have to go to a break. we will be right back with the cbs news republican debate in greenville, south carolina.
reflexes faster than the speed of thought. can a business have a spirit? can a business have a soul? can a business be...alive? ♪song: "that's life" ♪song: "that's life" ♪song: "that's life"♪ that's life. you diet. you exercise. and if you still need help lowering your blood sugar... ...this is jardiance. along with diet and exercise, jardiance works around the clock to lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it works by helping your body
through urination. this can help you lower blood sugar and a1c. and although it's not for weight loss or lowering systolic blood pressure, jardiance could help with both. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. other side effects are genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, kidney problems, and increased bad cholesterol. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of an allergic reaction. symptoms may include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so talk to your doctor, and for details, visit jardiance.com.
america's never been it's not who we are.ers. we don't ignore threats like climate change. we face our problems head-on. with american-made clean energy, we can end our dependence on foreign oil... spark new innovation... and create millions of new jobs. solving our climate crisis starts with 50% clean energy by 2030. so, what are we waiting for? i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com.
>> moderator: time now for closing statements. you will each have one minute, and we'll begin with governor kasich. >> well, i want to thank the people of south carolina. you've been fantastic. and look, what i want you to know is i'm going to send a lot of power, money, and influence back to where we all live. but as i've traveled around south carolina i've noticed something. you know, it's that people have a sense that you're not going to wait on a president. you know, when i was a kid we didn't wait for presidents to come to that little blue-collar town and fix things. you know, the lord made all of us special. the lord wants us to be connected. i believe we're part of a very big mosaic. and i'll send the power back. and whoever gets elected president here, hopefully we'll take care of the issue of jobs and wages and social security and the border. but the spirit of the america rests in all of us. it's in our guts. it's taking care
children. it's taking care of the lady next door who just lost her husband. it's fixing the schools where we live and telling kids to stay off drugs. you see, i think what the lord wants is for to us engage. in america, the spirit of america doesn't come from the top down. the spirit of america rests in us. and i want to call on everyone in america to double down and realize that you were made special to heal this country and lift it for everyone. thank you all very much. and i hope i can have your vote in south carolina. ( applause )
morality. we, the people, can stop that decline, starting right here in south carolina. if all the people who say, "i love ben carson and his policies, but he can't win," vote for me, not only can we win, but we can turn this thing around. you know, we have this manipulation by the political class and by the media telling us who we're supposed to pick and how we're supposed to live. we, the people, are the only people who determine that. and if you elect me as your next president, i promise you that you will get somebody who is accountable to everybody and beholden to no one. thank you. ( applause )
oval office because that's the question. it's not the things we're talking about today. it's the great challenge that may happen. i believe i will have a steady hand as commander in chief and president of the united states. i will unite this country around common purposes. because i did it as governor of the state of florida. when i was governor, we had eight hurricanes and four tropical storms in 16 months. our state was on its back. we recovered far faster than what people thought because we led. we ran to the challenge rather than cutting and running. that's what we need in washington, d.c. we need someone with a servant's heart that has a backbone that isn't going to focus polls and focus groups. it's going to focus on the american people to keep them safe and secure. i ask for your vote next saturday. ( applause )
right and right is considered wrong, and all the things that once held our families together are now under constant assault. and around the world, marc reputation is in decline. our allies don't trust us. our adversaries don't fear us. iran captures our sailors and parades them before the world on video. these are difficult times, but 2016 can be a turning point. that's why i'm running for president. that's why i'm here today to ask you for your vote. if you elect me president, we are going to reembrace free enterprise so everyone can go as far as their talent and work will take them. we are going to be a country that says life begins at conception and the life is worthy of the protection of our laws. we are going to be a country that says a marriage is between one man and one woman and we are going to be a country that says the constitution and the rights that it talks about do not come from our president. they come from our creator. and we are going to be loyal to our allies, like israel, not enemies like iran, and we will rebuild the u.s. military so no one will dare test it. vote for me. i will unify this party ( bell ) i
we will win this election and we will make want 21st century a new american century. ( applause ) >> moderator: matter senator cruz, your closing statement. >> south carolina, you have a critical choice to make. our country literally hangs in the balance. do you want another washington dealmaker who will do business as usual, cut deals with the democrats, grow government, grow debt, and give up our fundamental liberties? or do you want a conservative, a proven conservative who will stand and fight with you each and every day? listen, repealing obamacare is not going to be easy. passing a simple flat tax and abolishing the i.r.s. is not going to be easy. but if we stand with the american people we can do it. and today, we saw just how grave the stakes are. two branches of government hang in the balance, not
supreme court. if we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the second amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty-- every one of those hangs in the balance. my little girls are here. i don't want to look my daughters in the eyes and say, we lost their liberties." who do you know will defend the constitution and bill of rights and as a commander in chief who do you know will stand up to our economies as the calm, steady, deliberate strength to defeat our economies ( bell ) to secure the borders and keep america safe? ( applause ) >> moderator: all right, mr. trump, your closing statement. >> thank you. politicians are all talk, no action. you've seen where they've taken you to. woe owe $19 trillion right now. it's going to be inincreased with that horrible budget from a month ago that was just approved by politicians. we need a change. we need a very big change. we're going to make our
every day, every afternoon, and it's so true-- we don't win anymore. we don't win with health care. we don't win with isis and the military. we don't take care of our vets. we don't take care of our borders. we don't win. we're going to start winning again. we are not going to be controlled by people that are special interests and lobbyists that everybody here has contributed to. and you know what? they do exactly what those folks want them to do. we're going to make our country great, and we're going to do the right thing. i'm working for you. i'm not working for anybody else. thank you very much. ( applause ).
i do everything on the internet. but, it's kind of slow. my friends say i should get fios because it's the fastest. i just downloaded 600 photos in 60 seconds. that's seriously better. (husband) we're out of 2%! i wonder what else could be better around here? (husband) i heard that. switching to better internet is now easier than ever. only fios has the fastest internet available, with uploads up to 5x faster than cable. get 100 meg upload and download speeds. plus tv and phone for just $69.99 a month online with no annual contract.
>> moderator: so that's nine republican can bees down and at least three to go. we'll have more about the presidential race and the death of justice antonin scalia tomorrow morning on "face the nation." our guests include donald trump, marco rubio, and democratic candidate bernie sanders. debate coverage continues now on our digital network, cbsn. for major garrett and kimberly strassel, i'm john dickerson. good night.
it was an fiesty gop debates. verbal jabs and boos from the audience. the latest reaction on the death of antonin scalia. bone chilling wind tonight. that's not the only worry about the weather. there is snow heading our way. let's head outside to the first alert meteorologist howard bernstein. >> we have to get through the cold first but by monday we have a snowstorm on the way. a winter storm that will bring a whole mess of wintery precipitation and snow and sleet and freezing rain and r